 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Let’s solve the problem of evil > Reposting of parts of Homosexuality link:Condensed | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/14/2003 7:24 AM (GMT -6) |   | Thankyou SeeSaw,
However, just because the evidence is against Homosexuality being genetic, doesn't imply that one's sexuality isn't determined prior to birth.
In an earlier link, I describe the importance of hormonal balances and how for males sometimes they don't undergo the shift from having mostly estrogen to mostly testosterone, and, as is more rare, females do undergo a shift from having mostly estrogen to mostly testosterone. And, of course, there are in-betweens.
This is the sort of thing that made me characterize homosexuality as part of natural evil.
I will try and get some scientific research on this soon.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/14/2003 7:25 AM (GMT -6) | | Seesaw:If a homosexual person cannot change due to heredity and their predisposition to homosexuality, then how does one account for all the FORMER homosexuals? If homosexuality is genetic or biologically determined, it would then be impossible for homosexuals to become heterosexual.
To say that a homosexual person is genetically predisposed as such and cannot change is to justify what is called sin in the Bible. It thus allows a homosexual person to remain as such without the guilt they might feel if their behavior is called sin. There is a mentality pervasive today that if we Christians call something sin then we indeed must be unloving and judgemental, thus we have stopped calling sin sin and instead have bought into the ideas of the world. From what I have read from DLW and others, in your zeal to be loving people, you have accepted the world's idealogies and believe no differently. How exactly are we salt and light when we blend in with the darkness?
You are justifying homosexuality as being biological and genetic based on human viewpoints, not Biblical ones. You have said that what the Bible says regarding homosexuality is not really what it's intended to say. Your desire to be loving seems to have melted into a compromise in which you do not want to offend any homosexual person; thus, you will not call homosexuality a sin and you will say it is genetic and biological even though there is no hard evidence of it especially no Biblical evidence.
Yvette C. Schneider, a FORMER lesbian who is now married, is a policy analyst in the cultural studies department at Family Research Council and states: "Scientists have not even come close to proving a genetic or biological cause for homosexuality, yet homosexual activists continue to say that sexual activity between members of the same sex is "just the same" as race or gender. Without scientific evidence to support such claims, it is wrong and dangerously misleading to say that people are born homosexual and cannot change."
She ought to know being that she WAS a lesbian.
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/14/2003 7:25 AM (GMT -6) | | Seesaw:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
just because the evidence is against Homosexuality being genetic, doesn't imply that one's sexuality isn't determined prior to birth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DLW, it is disconcerting to see a Christian person so vehemently defend homosexuality. Are we looking at homosexuality and its causes from a Christian or a humanistic viewpoint? Perhaps we should clarify. I do not believe you are looking at it from a viewpoint of what the Bible says about homosexuality but rather what men say. Would I be correct in saying this?
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/14/2003 7:26 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a homosexual person cannot change due to heredity and their predisposition to homosexuality, then how does one account for all the FORMER homosexuals? If homosexuality is genetic or biologically determined, it would then be impossible for homosexuals to become heterosexual.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That isn't true. If you read my past writings, it has been shown that a constitutional homosexual can change under a rather narrow set of circumstances. Also, as I pointed out before there are people who engage in homosexual acts who are not constitutional homosexuals...
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To say that a homosexual person is genetically predisposed as such and cannot change is to justify what is called sin in the Bible. It thus allows a homosexual person to remain as such without the guilt they might feel if their behavior is called sin. There is a mentality pervasive today that if we Christians call something sin then we indeed must be unloving and judgemental, thus we have stopped calling sin sin and instead have bought into the ideas of the world. From what I have read from DLW and others, in your zeal to be loving people, you have accepted the world's idealogies and believe no differently. How exactly are we salt and light when we blend in with the darkness?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please read what I have written before. You will see there is a strong difference between what I believe and what my gay-rights activist friends believe and many other pro-gay Christians believe.
I say constitutional homosexuality and people being born with birth-defects like I was is due to the sin in the world and take an uncompromising position on that belief. I am saying that I also accept that for most constitutional homosexuals there is little chance of change. For some yes, and they should be supported if they are trying to change. Also, I did mention that I supported testing infants for whether or not they have undergone the hormonal switch and helping to induce the switch if it has not happened.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are justifying homosexuality as being biological and genetic based on human viewpoints, not Biblical ones. You have said that what the Bible says regarding homosexuality is not really what it's intended to say. Your desire to be loving seems to have melted into a compromise in which you do not want to offend any homosexual person; thus, you will not call homosexuality a sin and you will say it is genetic and biological even though there is no hard evidence of it especially no Biblical evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well you can blame that evil institution Bethel College for that, cause when I was there they told me that the Bible can't say anything more than what was written for the original audience. As such, since people in Biblical times had no clue regarding the potentially constitutional nature of homsexuality, the commandments against homosexual acts cannot be taken as saying that constitutional homosexuality is a sinful choice.
Throughout most of Christian history, we have answered the ecclesiastical problem of order on issues like this using both revealed and natural truths.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yvette C. Schneider, a FORMER lesbian who is now married, is a policy analyst in the cultural studies department at Family Research Council and states: "Scientists have not even come close to proving a genetic or biological cause for homosexuality, yet homosexual activists continue to say that sexual activity between members of the same sex is "just the same" as race or gender. Without scientific evidence to support such claims, it is wrong and dangerously misleading to say that people are born homosexual and cannot change."
She ought to know being that she WAS a lesbian.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:we already agree that it isn't genetic, but the claim that homosexuality is determined prior to birth doesn't rely on that cliam.
Also, generally speaking, I think lesbianism is far more likely to be induced by social factors from after birth and more of a choice.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/14/2003 7:26 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[quote]just because the evidence is against Homosexuality being genetic, doesn't imply that one's sexuality isn't determined prior to birth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seesaw:DLW, it is disconcerting to see a Christian person so vehemently defend homosexuality. Are we looking at homosexuality and its causes from a Christian or a humanistic viewpoint? Perhaps we should clarify. I do not believe you are looking at it from a viewpoint of what the Bible says about homosexuality but rather what men say. Would I be correct in saying this?
Well, I do not dismiss but affirm what the Bible says regarding homosexual acts. I also stand opposed to sexual determinism, both homosexual and heterosexual. I also affirm the governance the Church has over what is right regarding our sexual lives.
According to my gay-rights activist friends, I am a homophobe. I wish I could say they were praying for me, but generally-speaking they view me as very dangerous since I do openly disagree with their normative propaganda and do so in a much less hick, bible-thumping fashion.
So lets leave it to the Christian community to judge whether my views hold to the Bible or not, shall we?
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/14/2003 7:27 AM (GMT -6) | | Pow:
Note for DLW, or others)
Among the things that "I'm not buying" are proposals that homosexual sin (read 'acts') are justified by the following:
DETERMINISM
PRAGMATISM
(culural) RELATIVISM
and whatever is totally lacking of a place for the Will and Acts
Explanding...
DETERMINISM (ala G.K.Chesterton is represented by: "The determinist does not believe in appealing to the will, but he does believe in changing the environment. He must not say to the sinner, 'Go and sin no more,' because the sinner cannot help it.")
PRAGMATISM (ala G.K.Chesterton is represented by: "The pragmatist tells a man to think what he must think and never mind the Absolute. But precisely one of the things that he must think is the Absolute. ... Pragmatism is a matter of human needs; and one of the first of human needs is to be something more than a pragmatist. ")
Chesterton continuing: "The determinist (who, to do him justice, does not pretend to be a human being) makes nonsense of the human sense of actual choice. The pragmatist, who professes to be specially human, makes nonsense of the human sense of actual fact."
(culural) RELATIVISM, then, is an extension of the "pragmatism" that Chesterton shows us.
and...
"whatever is totally lacking of a place for the Will and Acts" is evidence of where Determinism is violating its curfew. SIN ALWAYS INVOLVES DECISION. Sin involves a subtle sliding into an abyss; but it always involves choice.
Any talk about homosexual sin that messes up with respect to DETERMINISM, PRAGMATISM, culural RELATIVISM, and lacks place for Will-in-Acts is Funky!!!!!! Punky!!!!!! Trashy!!!!!! and Jive!!!!!!
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/14/2003 7:27 AM (GMT -6) | | Seesaw, you insist that people choose to be gay. All the testimonies that controvert this fact are dismissed as a retroactive rereading of history, fueled by the wickness of the human heart. Since the primary evidence that would count against your theory is dismissed in this fashion, it renders your position pretty hard to refute.
But I have to keep wondering -- even apart from the testimonies of gay people -- who would CHOOSE this for themselves? (Not exactly a picnic life full of wonderful stuff you'd otherwise miss out on). And, even more fundamentally, HOW could a truly heterosexual person choose this for themselves? If your heterosexual, there's NOTHING about a gay relationship that is attractive or appealing -- or even possible. (I personally couldn't get aroused into a gay relationship if you had a GUN to my head: sorry, ain't happen'n. Shoot me.).
Doc
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/14/2003 7:27 AM (GMT -6) | | Pow:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GregBoyd
Seesaw, you insist that people choose to be gay.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Chesterton (and more) Seesaw is correct, in this respect at least: that the individual --regardless of the prevailing orientation her/his passions are directed-- CHOOSES to commit acts. And for sins there is always a beginning that rests with the individual.
I'd say that there are NO such things as people who "ARE" gay. Despite maybe having a same-gender-orientation "gay" is not part of the nature of humanity--as the nature of humanity is defined. So, while "there are NO such things as people who "ARE" gay", even so, there are those who at moments are involved in sinning sexually with those of their own gender. There sin is sin. They are they. These two are not synonomous. Their sin is an act, an action which began with a decision. THEY are not synonomous with their action. Their action begins, transpires, and ends. They remain. And "next time" THEY have the opportunity to make any decision possible. THEY do not have to sin again. THEY are not determined by sin. THEY, rather, determine whether or not they sin. There ARE NO gay men, except those committing homosexual sin at the moment.
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/14/2003 7:28 AM (GMT -6) | | Seesaw:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So lets leave it to the Christian community to judge whether my views hold to the Bible or not, shall we?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am part of the Christian community.
DLW, Your views are contradictory; I am somewhat confused as to where you stand.
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/14/2003 7:35 AM (GMT -6) | | DLW:
Pow, There is a big difference between the Henry James-style pragmatism and the C.S. Peirce pragmaticism. The latter is important for how it may help us to emulate the institutions of Science in our resolving of the problem of ecclesiastical order regarding homosexuality. The thing is that we see but in part, through a glass darkly and our understanding of human sexuality is imperfect, although it has progressed since biblical times. In answering the problem of ecclesiastical order regarding homosexuality we must take into account revealed and natural truths. The latter implies that past answers may be partially changed.
Here is an email I received from my High-School Biology teacher. He had a heart-attack earlier this Spring, but miraculously has not endured any long-term damage to his heart. He suggests some important scientific work regarding homosexuality that I think it would be more constructive for the link to dig up(as opposed to having more personal testimonies).
I believe Dr. John Money is still at Johns Hopkins. He strongly advocated that sexual orientation was very plastic and could be shaped to aboutwhatever one wanted during the first six or so years of life. HE WAS WAY OFF BASE. Nova did a program within the last few years about a tragic case that he was involved with, a case where a couple had twin boys, and during circumcising one of them, most of the penis was accidentally amputated. Money advocated that he be surgically transformed into a female, as sexual orientation of a female would develop if the child was raised as a girl.
Dr. Diamond (I believe he is still at the University of Hawaii) strongly disputed Money's ideas, believing that sexual orientation was the product of the influence of fetal hormones, and sexual orientation was more or less hard wired in prior to birth.
I forget what Diamond's first name is.
Fascinating is the work of Dr. Margaret Imperato McGinley of Cornell
University. I think I spelled her last two names correctly. She did work on a rare genetic condition called 5-alpha reductase deficiency syndrome. I do not know how to get Greek characters on email messages. This is a condition in which children are born looking exactly like females, but when puberty hits, the labia fuse to form a scrotum, the undescended testes descend into them, the clitoris enlarges to become a hypospadic penis (one with only a groove down it, as the labia minora never grew over it to form the urethra and foreskin of the penis. This condition is found in a few areas in the Dominican Republic. Money challenged McGinley's findings as they so radically contradicted his hypothesis. McGinley found about 18 of
these cases where none had been in the family before. They had been raised unambiguously as girls. Then at 12 or 13 they became boys. According to Money they should have had an adult sexual interest in males. While one was homosexual and one a transsexual who had moved to New York, the rest had married women or were living with women outside of wedlock, but clearly of a heterosexual orientation. The hormones that are important in switching all fetuses from a female into a male are basically two in number. One is testosterone and the other is di-hydrotestosterone. These individuals in the Dominican Republic had the one, but lacked the enzyme needed to change it into the other. They had the enzyme that converts the brain from the
female pattern into the male pattern, but not the form that converts the gonads, the genital tubercil (sp?), etc. to the male pattern. That is why, even though they were raised as females and according to Money's learning theory should have been interested in males, almost none of them showed any sexual interest in males. Their brains were already switched.
You will want to look up information about DES, di-ethyl silbesterone (and I know I slaughtered the last word--just look for it as DES). This chemical was given to many pregnant women who were diabetics in the late 40s to early 50s, maybe later. Diabetic women have a far greater tendency to miscarry than do non-diabetic women who are pregnant. In the 1970s, I believe it was, doctors made a disturbing discovery. Females born to women who had taken DES were coming down with one type of cervical cancer at about age 20 in alarming numbers. As you know, cervical cancer is not common at that
age. So these females became the object of much medical curiosity. One of the things discovered along the way was that these women had an incidence of Lesbianism that was about six times greater than that found in the general population. DES is a chemical that has much in common with male hormones, testosterone, I believe. That they would have an elevated incidence of attraction to females, therefore, would make sense.
Next turn to research on Turner's Syndrome. These are females who have only one X chromosome and no second sex chromosome. The have 45 chromosomes per cell. They are X0. These females are sterile, but are extremely maternal. They make excellent adoptive mothers. Their IQ is normal, though they do have poor spacial abilities. You would not want them as a catcher on a softball team, nor would you want them to pilot the plane you are in. They may not be able to get the plane to the runway. Curiously enough, no cases of Lesbianism have (or I should say "had" as I am not up to date anymore) ever been found in them. And why would that be? They have no gonads. Both
sexes produce some of the sex hormones of the other sex. But with Turner's syndrome individuals you have as testosterone free a body as you can get, as I understand it.
Look for the work of Gunter Dorner. Both the "u" and the "o" have umlauts over them. He was an East German endocrinologist at Humboldt University who did a number of very interesting studies. I must get to bed now, so you will have to wait before I can send you any more.
But Dorner's work is worth finding. He had several studies that used
radically different approaches yet all supported a fetal endocrinological basis to sexual orientation.
Note by DLW: I did leave out several testimony's by ex-homosexuals posted by SeeSaw. I did this because of the controversy over whether they truly did change and the anecdotal nature of this sort of evidence. I do recognize the possibility of change, but it is rather rare.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/14/2003 7:36 AM (GMT -6) | | Pow:I skimmed what you had there, DLW. And not to cause offense, but I approached it THIS way. I just assumed that what was there was the strongest possible case for the idea that it seems very "natural" for some people to follow a homosexual course. Then I asked myself: "Does that matter with respect to what I am handed by Scriptures?" And the answer is: "NO."
Again, not to wave off what you took time and care to post. (I'm a bit rushed by needing to get to my kids for their homework.) But I see the crux of the matter to be the same as what the Dessert Fathers hand to us, and in the Scripture passages that talk about it. Here are the NIV verses that came up when "passion" was entered.
Romans 7:5 For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death.
1 Corinthians 7:9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
Galatians 5:24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires.
1 Thessalonians 4:5 not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God;
Titus 2:12 It teaches us to say "No" to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live selfcontrolled, upright and godly lives in this present age,
Titus 3:3 At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another.
And because of that I don't think that any studies of particularies of makeup don't matter.
Its not so much the blocks that the runner leaves at the start of the race that matter, but the goal that is determinative of the course of the race.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/14/2003 7:36 AM (GMT -6) | |
The term "natural" has been used in a very ideologically manipulative way for much of recent history. If something is natural then it can't be wrong. It is not subject to critique and alteration. Examples of this are the Natural Rate of Unemployment as propagandized by Milton Friedman. My high-school biology teacher used to view things that way, but I think thanks to our dialogs that he no longer does.
I think that is the wrong way to interpret what my friend wrote. He briefly describes the best of scientific research regarding the determination of sexuality. We must bear in mind Hume's dictum that one cannot infer an ought from an is without an intermediary normative premise. Many people insert the normative premise that if homosexuality naturally occurs, it can't be wrong. Christianity does not accept this. We do believe in natural evils. As the quotes you give show, we do believe people have choices as to how they live out their sexualities and that there are wrong choices.
So I would encourage you to reread my high-school biology teacher's email again with the view that any scientific study regarding the positive facts surrounding homosexuality does not imply the normative premise that homosexuality is just another sexuality.
But we must understand these facts to the best of our ability to be able to make intelligent contributions to the reworking out the ecclesiastical problem of order regarding homosexuality.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/14/2003 7:40 AM (GMT -6) | | Here is a reply to Pow(Someone with whom I have strong post-envy of, hence, all the repostings...)
Powquote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lets take: Peter didn't write about constitutional homosexuality.
This is a BOGUS reply. I hope that you know that. It angers me. What I posted, specifically, was that we "become sharers (koinonoi) of] the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires." Previous to that I had posted several verses about "passions." Rather than addressing them you took the escape route of focusing only on the word "natural," and taking your word for it that my post didn't specifically address what your friend had shared, you did not look at what I was saying.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry for not reading and responding carefully enough to your post. I believe I am in agreement with the need for us all to escape the corrutpion from our evil passions. My understanding was that the issue at hand was whether we should insist that homosexuals try really hard to escape their homosexuality, or be celibate their entire lives or accept(the rather "unnatural" lifestyle for any male) of a monogamous homosexual marriage(which may include also committing themselves to not engage in certain activities).
That is how I understand and deal with this issue. A lot of what you wrote sounded very good, but I didn't see the concrete implications or it sounded to me that they were basically saying that because of the Holy Spirit, our past traditions on this issue are either scriptural or at the same level as scripture. That is what I am hearing from you, overall.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So we now come to this. You do pose an instance where what I had said IS talking about it. (The Peter verse was one of the few that Rakestraw offered--making it convenient for drag-and-drop.) But you seem to have really failed to take what Rakestraw says seriously. THAT was the point. (Coming from an Evangelical it makes for a convenient reference.)
Galatians 5:24 says: "Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires." Nature there is not the best the NIV has to offer. Our created nature is good. Our "nature" is not evil. But we can grasp what it is saying. A nature enslaved to passions and desires needs healing, restoring. It needs baptism. 1 Thessalonians 4:5, Titus 2:12, and Titus 3:3 all point to this problem with passions and lost selfcontrol. Scripture points to our need. Scripture also points to our CURE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought we were all born into crap-filled situations, which made Jesus unique in being able to save us? There is natural evil. Stuff happens to us prior to birth that is not from God and that affects us for the rest of our lives. Now, I already said I supported the importance of trying to correct the failure of fetuses hormonal systems to change prior to birth. Experience points that that is the best way to prevent constitutional homosexuality. If someone plagued with constitutional homosexuality wants to change then they should be supported by the Church. However, I do not see pressure to do such as being wise.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where you are going to really go off the road is when you read my last sentence. I beleive you are entirely wrong, DLW, and dangerously so. But I also think that what Seesaw says in posting "I can't believe a Christian man is saying that a person can't overcome these things." is also unhelpful. This whole debate is filled with rantings about whether enough persons to be statistically significant "change." THAT'S NOT THE POINT.
The REAL point is that passions can be brought under control of the Cross. Paul mentioned a "thorn in the flesh." Nothing guarantees that God's child will be free from the effects of the fall until the death of his very flesh. Sin is that mortal. But, "The mind of sinful man [Or mind set on the flesh] is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace..." (Romans 8:6)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, and passions must be brought under control. What is under control is what we disagree about. We also disagree about whether or not marriage is an acceptable institution for controlling these passions for homosexuals. My point regarding scripture is that we can only address the case of constitutional homosexuality by drawing parallels, since Paul and the OT didn't address the question directly.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a thing called praxis. This praxis has shown that only a rather small percentage of constitutional homosexuals, by virtue of their endocrinology, can change.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are talking about the same kind of change that Seesaw appears to be. I'm pointing out that the Bible preaches, and offers, and orders something a full magnitude larger!
Nothing short of the SCALE of the CROSS, the GRAVE, the RESURRECTION, and the ASCENSION will do. And nothing as puny as "constitutional" orientation can stand up to those!!!!!!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please, in my view, we are debating how we reconsider our traditions regarding the policies of the Church on this issue. It is not appropriate to invoke the CROSS and RESURRECTION in one's views. Jesus' death did break the Satan's rule over this world and make salvation possible. Homosexuality is of much rather lower magnitude than one's salvation. Though one may be unable to reverse the foot-hold of sin from alcoholism, schizophrenia and homosexuality over one's life, nothing can keep us from embracing Christ despite our brokenness and sinfulness.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't see why a constitutional homosexual cannot do the above in a monogamous homosexual marital relationship.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This fails by violating what God instituted as marriage. It subjects both God's Word in Scripture and in Creation to mere contemporary sociology. It presumes that it works the same as marriage, while not knowing what it is talking about. It asks that sin be accepted as divotion. It names lust: "monasticism." It subjects the community to individualism. It makes the Body to be a social organization. It redefines humanity atomistically.
REAL fulfillment is NOT in the flesh. Flesh is for dying.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It accurately describes Ecclesiastical traditions as formed by us humans and not teleologically driven by the Holy Spirit. I am sorry, I do not understand much of what you write.
No one here is saying that real fulfillment is in the flesh. However, we still take into account our weaknesses in deciding what we should and should not do.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seriously, DLW, if you were ordained to the Christian ministry, and you said what you do below, you should be defrocked and removed from ministry.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why cannot homosexuals escape the corruption of their evil desires for new, additional sex partners and live devout, God-glorifying lives in monogamous homosexual marriages? We got the power, but the end goal for godliness, in this life, may not include over-coming their constitutional homosexuality. Consider Schizo-phrenia or Alcoholism. One cannot necessarily overcome these disorders, but one can learn to live with them in a way that is glorifying to God. Why can't the same be true for homosexuality?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to: "Why cannot homosexuals escape the corruption of their evil desires for new, additional sex partners and live devout, God-glorifying lives in monogamous homosexual marriages?", THAT IS ENTIRELY TRASH!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Much of what husbands and wives do to hold each other accountable in their walks does not have anything to do with their gender. the verses you list are all good, but the issue revisits the problem of evil. If God meant for homosexuals to escape their corruption, how come so many have suffered so long trying to do so in vain? It is a reflection on this tragic praxis that makes me reconsider what was held unquestioned earlier.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The END defines the meaning of a thing. OUR end is not here and in this condition. What you propose, of "one can learn to live with them in a way that is glorifying to God. Why can't the same be true for homosexuality?", by which you mean that we should preach and consel God's dear children that they should "SIN THAT GRACE MIGHT ENCREASE?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I already mentioned earlier that I believed there should be some restrictions/guidance regarding what sorts of acts between homosexual married couples. I think that clearly is biblical. However, they are not sinning by being constitutional homosexuals, since they did not choose to become that way.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather, THIS is our message, from Galatians 5:
1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. ... 13 You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love.
(I know the background of the Galatians situation. YET, Paul in 13 says "do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature.")
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not advocating conferring a blessing on the freedoms exhibited by many with the sinful nature of homosexuality. I am just saying that on this lower grade form of sin(no worse and less prevalent than the rampant libertarian views of heterosexuality) that praxis has made clear that requiring the constitutional homosexual to change their sexuality has not worked(Now with bisexuals, that is another matter.).
quote:
There is more to be said of praxis and theoria that you have.
Remember the verse about the millstone?
Thanks, I know of how angst-ridden a concern about the problem of ecclesiastical order can be, since with leadership in the reconsideration of the fallible rules that guide the Church in its ministry comes a responsibility for its failures.
No one wants to plant a seed of sin in someone's life, but we do need to reflect and reconsider what is right praxis on a regular basis.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/14/2003 8:17 AM (GMT -6) | | DLW:Seesaw does a decent summary: I translate her summary with comments in bold.
quote:
I knew that this conversation boiled down to a debate about far more than whether or not homosexuality is imbred. DLW, Iconclast, and Shell have all made comments that homosexuality is not sin(read chosen for some), that homosexual lovers are not sinning in their relationship(depends on what sort of acts they do), and that they cannot change and we as Christians are only judgemental
(read:deeply mistaken) if we call homosexuality sin(chosen), and if we do so, we certainly are not loving(advancing the kingdom of God).
quote:
Seesaw:DLW, with total love from a sister to a brother, I urge you to delve into Scripture. What you are saying is so anti-Biblical. I truly believe that you have bought into lies of the world and have compromised the truth of God's Word. ANY sex outside of marriage is IMMORALITY. Immorality in the Bible is SIN. A homosexual having sex outside of marriageis in sin. God is not going to change who He(God) is(Who is God? Who are you to claim access to God? This is why Jewish people refuse to pronounce the full name of G-d. G-d is ultimately above all of our finite, fallible understandings!) in order to make things work for a homosexual person (or any person). He is the "SAME today, yesterday, and tomorrow." He does not change nor does His Word. You cannot rewrite Scripture and have it suit you. It does not work that way.
DLW:I would encourage you to study Christian history. God does not change, but our resolutions of the ecclesiastical problem of order do not rely solely on revealed truths from God in the Bible. They also should rely on natural truths from God revealed by Science.
It does not advance the kingdom of God to conflate with scripture our fallible traditions regarding its right interpretation.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.
Edited by - DLW on 05/14/2003 7:04:19 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/14/2003 8:20 AM (GMT -6) | | On this link, unlike the other one, we must take into account both revealed and natural truths. As such, I would pray that posters do read the previous posts and, perhaps, we can advance our collective understanding of homosexuality and the Church.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/14/2003 2:01 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Pow:DLW, it is not that we differ in how we concieve of the issue of endo..., but rather -- it seems -- that much more important issues are conceived differently. You have a modernist sociological definition of the "church." (Which I can only describe as small-c.) Actually, you seem to have about half-and-half of two things that do not belong together. That's the fruits of graduate school. Letting Durkheim define the Church for you has, along with the Roman Catholic legacy of changing and revising canons, created the mindset you posted here. The fallout is that you view the past saints as limited to that same Dirkheimesqe rationalism that you hold. You confine the Spirit in the past to the limits you seek to impose now, and then use that supposed past to prove that nothing is amiss. (Sorry, but that's all over your posts.) So, again, you have deep contradictions going on.
Let me restate what you just said. My Durkheimian view of the church includes that it includes institutions that encapsulate meaningful religious experiences, but also exert social control and confers approbation and disaprobation on various activities of our lives. In this view, one can study and compare and critique various practices and even debate what sorts of goals the churches should encourage their members to undertake as emanations of their faith. In doing so, the churches cannot simply look to scriptures for what they should or should not do or confer blessing on or denounce as sinful. It must reinterpret what should be done to take into account new situations and also consider the importance of traditions that have developed regarding Christian beliefs(like the veneration of Mary or the belief human life begins at conception).
However, in my view, there is fundamental social choice/ power/openness regarding how the churches set out its rules. In the determinations of these rules I privilege scientific facts and more democratic decision-making bodies. In this, I generally view ecclesiastical decision-making bodies in a similar way to how I would analyze secular(public and private) decision-making bodies. All of which are fallible in the decisions they make.
So based on this view, I see much of the historical doctrine regarding homosexuality as flawed, not so much because of ill intentions but because of incompleteness of our knowledge of the facts surrounding the issue. My focus is not on the power of the Holy Spirit to empower us all to surmount our sinful natures, but rather the problem of evil surrounding homosexuality. If God wants homosexuals to overcome their sinfulness why have so many of them failed to change when they tried so hard. Why have they suffered from their condition so much, as well as their treatment by homophobic individuals(who studies have shown are more likely to experience a partial blood-rush to the penis when exposed to pictures of the male body)? Is this God punishing them for their sinfulness? Don't we believe in gratuitous evil at this discussion board?
I choose my battles. I accept, like Reinhold Niebuhr, that there are some sinful aspects of this world that for some mysterious reason we are unlikely to see change in this lifetime.
I think it is important to put a critical eye to the ecclesiastical problem of order, because trusting ecclesiastical leaders to do the right thing has led to often to acts that defame Christianity.
It is also important to have a historical/evolutionary notion of the church, because if we do not learn from history we will repeat it and because of Truth. How the church functions has changed in important ways over time. Some not for the better. Studying the variety in the manifestations of the church and its attitudes towards divisive issues today can inculcate more ecumenical views so we do not denigrate our collective witness over relatively unimportant issues(relative to illuminating/sharing the Gospel with others).
quote:
There was an article I'd like to recommend, that the CCCU website used to have. Maybe I can find a copy.
(But the contours of your arguement will not change the LARGER PICTURE. I can't really imagine why you don't see that. Or why you see the matters I've posted as being divorced from the issue--compartmentalizing what is overarching...)
I don't understand what you see as over-arching, perhaps we should continue this on our church link...
blessings...
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 5/14/2003 5:30 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
dlw
On this link, unlike the other one, we must take into account both revealed and natural truths. As such, I would pray that posters do read the previous posts and, perhaps, we can advance our collective understanding of homosexuality and the Church.
It looked to me that you were planning to define the Church here too. We relly need to BOTH lay a few things out, of the Church: me on "a Pneumatologically conditioned Christology as constituting Ecclessiology, and you on Dirkheim and the Papal domination inspired version? (which is Christological/historical ONLY) | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/15/2003 8:15 AM (GMT -6) | | I think your last response would be better continued in the Church link...
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 5/19/2003 8:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Pietism as an Ecclesiological Heresy
The title of this thread includes BOTH "Ecclesia" and a behavior. Evangelical Pietists have one tradition of how this is ordered. But that is not the only tradition.
Consider the following quote from a footnote in Christos Yannaras' "The Freedom of Morality"
quote:
Footnote 8
'Precisely because the Church is not a religious ideology but the continuous assumption of the flesh of the world and the transformation of it into the theanthropic flesh of Christ, it is impossible for the ontological truth of the Church's unity and communion to "coexist" passively with a culture centered on the individual, a culture of objectification. The Church lives and functions only so long as she is continuously and dynamically assuming individualistic, objectified existences in order to transfigure them into unity of life, into personal relationship and communion. But this means that on the historical and social level, the life and unity of the Church operates as a radical and direct rejection or subversion of the cultural "system" of individualism and objectification. Otherwise, the Church would be subject to the way of life imposed by the "system," so that she herself would be alienated both as a reality of truth and salvation, and as an institutional expression of this reality.
From www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/YannarasPietism.htm in the chapter called Pietism as an Ecclesiological Heresy from "The Freedom of Morality" by Christos Yannaras
NOW, as "the Church is the continuous assumption of the flesh of the world and the transformation of it into the theanthropic flesh of Christ" JUST HOW CAN THE CHURCH BE LEFT OUT OF THIS DISCUSSION? You can't even leave it out of the thread title.
And since the GOAL (of everything) is "the transformation of the flesh of the world into the theanthropic flesh of Christ" how can any other thought be considered?
Calcified, human hierarchies (like BOTH legalism and pietism) are in antipathy with this transformation. But so is cheep grace.
Notice that Yannaras says:
quote:
Church operates as a radical and direct rejection or subversion of the cultural "system" of individualism and objectification. Otherwise, the Church would be subject to the way of life imposed by the "system," so that she herself would be alienated both as a reality of truth and salvation, and as an institutional expression of this reality.
DLW, YOU don't seem to be treating the Church as a radical and direct rejection or subversion... The TRUTH of the Church is the "reality of truth and salvation"; not some facsimile, mimickry, etc.
What you seem to have a really, really hard time with is that the Church -- by the Holy Spirit -- IS the "institutional expression of this reality...of truth and salvation" AND is also therefore the "radical and direct rejection or subversion" of all individualistic human "solutions."
EVEN YOURS. | | Back to Top | | |
| 69 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 7:37 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|